patrick.net

Call it Crazy says

The other 1/3 above could be anything... a knife, a axe, a baseball bat, a chain saw, a steel pipe, a rock or anything. Maybe even a car...

Go enter a large MOB of people with ANY of the weapons you listed above. see how long you last before you are crushed and have your eyes gouged out by the angry mob.

Meanwhile a machine gun could mow them down if you had unlimited ammo. That's where-in the problem lies... Automatic weapons make it too easy to kill on a massive scale.

Call it Crazy says

Do you have a link to that.... From what I have seen, all school zones now are federally specified "no gun zones".

http://cga.ct.gov/2011/pub/chap952.htm#Sec53a-217b.htm

".....this section shall not apply to the otherwise lawful possession of a firearm (1) by a person for use in a program approved by school officials in or on such school property or at such school-sponsored activity, (2) by a person in accordance with an agreement entered into between school officials and such person or such person's employer, (3) by a peace officer, as defined in subdivision (9) of section 53a-3, while engaged in the performance of such peace officer's official duties, or (4) by a person while traversing such school property for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting or for other lawful purposes, provided such firearm is not loaded and the entry on such school property is permitted by the local or regional board of education."

The various iterations of Gun Free School Zone Acts exempt holders of state-issued carry pemits. I had a Georgia concealed carry permit for over 20 years and I'm moderately familiar with relevant laws.

Had you stopped to do 60 seconds of research, you wouldn't have wasted multiple posts suggesting that the Principal be legally allowed to have a firearm. Clearly that was already the case had she wished to do so.

BoomAndBustCycle says

Automatic weapons make it too easy to kill on a massive scale.

Automatic weapons are rarely used in mass shootings.

Call it Crazy says

How about arming the principal or V. principal? I would think they would be stable enough to handle it. After all, they didn't get into the management position because they were unstable.

The risk is just too great that unstable teachers/principals would snap and cause their own massacres if they felt dissed/slighted/disrespected by student body. It would be much better to have cops in civilian clothing monitor schools. If those guys are armed on campus, I have no problems with that. But to have armed teachers/principls many of whom already have authoritarianism issues and don't take kindly when students disobey them would be the equivalent of placing a bomb in school setting.

It is simply disappoining that in a country with so much abundance compared with vast majority of the world that people don't realize how good they have it. It's almost as if that frame of reference does not exist for them whether these folks are "mentally ill" or who resort to a gun to avenge past slights.

Bellingham Bill says

The issue is the toxic mix of insane people, glorification of "tactical" firearms, and the ready availability of assault weapons.

Removing the assault weapons breaks the chain to a significant degree.

No it doesn't. You can't remove millions of weapons that are everywhere. All you'll accomplish with a gun ban is innocent law abiding civilians being disarmed, while insane and criminals will have no problem being armed.

Millions of gun owners every day do not commit crimes. Why would you want to punish everyone for mistakes of the few crazies who should be locked up in the hospitals to begin with.

And if you noticed, or paid a little bit more attention, you'd notice that in majority of these crimes, assault weapons weren't used.

Call it Crazy says

You think it's acceptable to have teachers with "authoritarianism" issues free access to your kids??? Really??

Parents don't have a choice in this matter - they don't hire teachers. However, many people with "authoritarianism" issues do self select themselves into certain professions such as being a cop, teacher, military career etc. Giving teachers access to guns brings up too much uncertainty into the mix. Off the top of my head, I can think of my high school physics and chemistry teachers who should have been profiled as "red flags" if they were allowed to carry guns. Actually, I take it a step further. I am sure that my physics teacher would bust a cap into someone's ass.

Bellingham Bill says

leo707 says

Automatic weapons are rarely used in mass shootings.

That did not refute what you were replying to.

I was responding to pointless rhetoric.

OK, sure...let's ban all machine guns and automatic weapons.

This would be a great help, except they are never used in these mass shootings.

The "assault weapons" used in these types of shootings are not even "real" assault weapons, traditionally to be considered an assault weapon the gun had to be capable of automatic fire. The assault weapons used are primarily aesthetic third-cousins to real assault weapons minus the more lethal feature of being an actual automatic weapon.

Bellingham Bill says

The issue is the toxic mix of insane people, glorification of "tactical" firearms

It is a toxic mix of insane people and firearms. I doubt changing the aesthetics of the available weapons would prevent any shootings.

FortWayne says

It is a toxic mix of insane people and firearms.

It was a toxic mix of insanity and people.

leo707 says

I doubt chancing the aesthetics of the available weapons would prevent any shootings.

And I think you're wrong about that.

The insane people who want to kill people also want to be cool doing it.

There's also magazine capacity limits we need to regulate, too, of course.

Well, if you think having these toy guns around is more important than people not getting killed by them, you're free to disagree.

I just think you're insane -- the prototypical "gun nut" -- too, then.

FortWayne says

You can't remove millions of weapons that are everywhere. All you'll accomplish with a gun ban is innocent law abiding civilians being disarmed, while insane and criminals will have no problem being armed.

I'm not proposing "removing" them overnight. This will take decades.

It took decades to make the mess of a society we haven now, so we're not going to be able to fix it any faster.

And if you noticed, or paid a little bit more attention, you'd notice that in majority of these crimes, assault weapons weren't used.

That's irrelevant. Enough are.

The loss of new recreational firearms is not the end of the world. You can buy air-powered replicas like in Japan if you love them so much.

The use case of defending yourself with an assault weapon is idiotic. Stop bringing it up, since it's just gun-nut fantasy that has no bearing with today's reality.

And the gun-nut fantasy of liberating the country from .gov with their assault weapons is even further into the fever swamp you guys inhabit.

I don't have the numbers, but DC had a ban on handguns for a long time, yet it had the highest murder rate per capita in the nation. When the Supreme Court struck down the handgun ban, the murder rate actually declined. How does that make gun control = less murders?

Quigley says

I don't have the numbers, but DC had a ban on handguns for a long time, yet it had the highest murder rate per capita in the nation. When the Supreme Court struck down the handgun ban, the murder rate actually declined. How does that make gun control = less murders?

Considering DC is a smallish city surrounded by Virginia and Maryland, it obviously doesn't have the ability to control access to guns effectively since someone can just take a metro across the Patomic to a gun show in good ol' Virginia. You have to look at country-level data to make useful comparisons I'd say.

bdrasin says

Quigley says

I don't have the numbers, but DC had a ban on handguns for a long time, yet it had the highest murder rate per capita in the nation. When the Supreme Court struck down the handgun ban, the murder rate actually declined. How does that make gun control = less murders?

Considering DC is a smallish city surrounded by Virginia and Maryland, it obviously doesn't have the ability to control access to guns effectively since someone can just take a metro across the Patomic to a gun show in good ol' Virginia. You have to look at country-level data to make useful comparisons I'd say.

Country level data are tainted by demographic, cultural, and other factors.

Peter P says

bdrasin says

Quigley says

I don't have the numbers, but DC had a ban on handguns for a long time, yet it had the highest murder rate per capita in the nation. When the Supreme Court struck down the handgun ban, the murder rate actually declined. How does that make gun control = less murders?

Considering DC is a smallish city surrounded by Virginia and Maryland, it obviously doesn't have the ability to control access to guns effectively since someone can just take a metro across the Patomic to a gun show in good ol' Virginia. You have to look at country-level data to make useful comparisons I'd say.

Country level data are tainted by demographic, cultural, and other factors.

Yes, these factors present difficulty in interpreting the data but the facts are so completely unambiguous that it doesn't matter.

It's been several days and I still can't find any Sandy Hook Shooting related Pedobear pics. You people are disappointing me.

zzyzzx says

It's been several days and I still can't find any Sandy Hook Shooting related Pedobear pics. You people are disappointing me.

unacceptable speech.

FILTH!

Your disgusting.

Filthy disgusting. Words fail me.

There is enough information in your post to have you arrested.

"Pedobear is an Internet meme that became popular through the imageboard 4chan.[1] As the name suggests ("pedo" being short for "pedophile"), it is portrayed as a pedophilic bear.[2] It is a concept used to mock pedophiles or people who have an interest in minors or jailbait. The bear image has been likened to bait used to lure children or as a mascot for pedophiles.[3][4][5]"

Bellingham Bill says

leo707 says

I doubt chancing the aesthetics of the available weapons would prevent any shootings.

And I think you're wrong about that.

The insane people who want to kill people also want to be cool doing it.

...

I just think you're insane -- the prototypical "gun nut" -- too, then.

I think you are insane if you think that limiting the availability to "uncool" guns would put any dent in mass shootings. You do realize that two of the four guns used in the Columbine shootings were 30 year old shotguns? Right?

Yes, lets usher in the next era of peace and require all guns to be licensed by hello kitty.

Feel better?

zzyzzx says

It's been several days and I still can't find any Sandy Hook Shooting related Pedobear pics. You people are disappointing me.

You fucking disgust me.

leo707 says

zzyzzx says

It's been several days and I still can't find any Sandy Hook Shooting related Pedobear pics. You people are disappointing me.

You fucking disgust me.

Unbelievable, just when you thought the right couldn't get any worse.

The filth this board spews!

OUTRAGEOUS!

Call it Crazy says

Your stance is that we need to have new laws, regulations and bans on assault weapons. By looking at this data, that's not where the problem lies...

The problem lies in the people behind the guns!

High caliber, semi-automatic handguns are a HUGE problem. Just ask inner-city cops. Easy to conceal and easy to fire 20 rounds in 20 seconds. (you never hear about drive by knifings.)

Automatic weapons are pretty much gone except for the wacko militia types in Idaho, Montana etc. I think machine guns, etc, have been outlawed for a long time.

Anyway, with all of your statistics you seem to be unintentionally making the case that we should go the way of Britain and pretty much ban them altogether.

Look, I understand the problem is complicated with no complete answers. But there are steps that could be taken to minimize gun violence. The fight against the gun industry will have to be like the fight against the cigarette industry. You can have your gun (or cigarette) but it is going to cost $$$$. That money will start to pay for the expensive solutions that are needed.

leo707 says

You do realize that two of the four guns used in the Columbine shootings were 30 year old shotguns?

they would have bought cooler guns if they could.

I rest my fucking case.

Bellingham Bill says

they would have bought cooler guns if they could.

No argument there, but the inability to get cool guns most certainly did not stop them.

I like the pink guns idea.

leo707 says

Yes, lets usher in the next era of peace and require all guns to be licensed by hello kitty.

That's actually not a bad idea. Assault weapons should be the ones in garish colors, not the harmless water guns.

You can buy any "airsoft" replica you want in Japan, and they don't require the stupid orange muzzles.

Maybe around 20% of the problem is that walking around like Rambo is too attractive to unstable people.

It's not the entire issue, but it contributes. Along with the copy-cat element, the fun people get now playing murder simulation video games.

"A woman told CNN affiliate KOIN that she saw a man wearing a hockey mask jogging through Macy's and wielding an assault rifle."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/11/us/oregon-mall-shooting/index.html

http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/law3a.htm

" ... we are stating in no uncertain terms that we have
'zero tolerance' for the sexual exploitation of children."
Senator Orin Hatch

Call it Crazy says

But, the more troubling thing is that the reporting has shown that ALL of the shooters in the past shootings over the years either have mental health issues, treatment or on prescription SSRI drugs...

What's your point? 10 percent of the population take SSRIs. You want to lock up 10% of the population in mental institutions, just so you can have your fucking gun? Fuck you.

The NRA will dig in and nothing will change. Now if 27 politicians were killed, they have a new bill tough on firearms ownership passed in a week.

TechGromit says

The NRA will dig in and nothing will change. Now if 27 politicians were killed, they have a new bill tough on firearms ownership passed in a week.

Politicians... some... allready have someone with a gun next to them.... so they have no worry... hmmm except when someone tried to shoot Reagan.

Call it Crazy says

There have been 435 murders in a 10 month period in one city, assumingly, by handguns.

Where's the outrage from the population to these 435 deaths????

Your stance is that we need to have new laws, regulations and bans on assault weapons. By looking at this data, that's not where the problem lies...

There is a lot of outrage at all gun deaths. And do you know how many of the handguns were semi-automatic assault weapons? I'm betting the vast majority were.

What happened last Friday is a STARTING POINT for a larger discussion of ALL gun violence in America. There will be the topic changers (cars kill more!) and the double downers (We need MORE guns!).

It's all bullshit. We have more guns and more gun related injuries then any other nation on earth. More guns won't solve the problem. It may take 30 years to ween us from our gun addiction, but "a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step".

Call it Crazy says

There certainly is... but your "group" wants to keep pointing at the "gun" as the problem. That's not where the problem lies.... You just keep harping that the "evil gun" needs to go away and new laws have to be institute

More guns = more gun deaths.
Less guns = less gun deaths.

Simple formula proved over and over again. Changing human nature's tendency towards violence is difficult. Changing the tools used to act out the violence, much easier.

You keep harping on the "mass shootings" when there are a mass of shootings every single day. You implied there was not enough outrage over the other shooting deaths.
Call it Crazy says

There have been 435 murders in a 10 month period in one city, assumingly, by handguns.

Where's the outrage from the population to these 435 deaths????

I'm saying Sandy Hook is starting a conversation at minimizing all gun deaths.

Call it Crazy says

So, in this past instance, is it the guns fault for this tragedy or could the individual person be at fault?

And if he'd only had a knife? It would still be his fault but the result would be far better.

In the end, your "group" will finally admit that guns are a problem but, hey, there are far too many out there in the hands of bad guys to do anything about it. Got keep selling guns to the good guys. Insanity.

TechGromit says

Now if 27 politicians were killed, they have a new bill tough on firearms ownership passed in a week.

+1.

These kids weren't 1% Job Creators, so we should just move on.

Vicente says

TechGromit says

Now if 27 politicians were killed, they have a new bill tough on firearms ownership passed in a week.

+1.

These kids weren't 1% Job Creators, so we should just move on.

The issue right now is that we're all outraged and feel powerless to do anything... so we demand change. In a few weeks it will all blow over and we'll bury our heads in the sand.

This issue isn't about guns, it's about mentally ill people owning guns. And if we were to ban all people who have been diagnosed from owning weapons, they would find another way to get 'em.

Still can't get the image of some of my high school teachers strapped with a glock out of my mind. It would be like the scene of Office Space where Michael Bolton is listeting to gangsta rap on his way to work.

What if a teachers pulls that scene from Pulp Fiction - "Say "what" motherfucker one more time, say it!"

Call it Crazy says

rooemoore says

More guns = more gun deaths.

Less guns = less gun deaths.

FALSE

Go back and do so research when we had the assault weapons ban and see if gun deaths went down.

So your point is a country with no guns would have as much gun violence as a country will 300 million guns? Of course not.

Your point is that Americans are by nature more prone to violence than other countries and so even if we took away the guns we would still find a way to kill each other at the same rate? Nope.

The research you are asking me to do -- the stuff you have posted here only shows that gun deaths did not go up when the assault ban was lifted.

In other words, the assault ban did not keep enough guns out of the market. The assault ban was not effective. But gun deaths continue. So why not look to countries like Britain where strict gun laws have reduced gun deaths?

In everything you post your unintentionally arguing for a complete gun ban. Call it Crazy says

elliemae says

This issue isn't about guns, it's about mentally ill people owning guns. And if we were to ban all people who have been diagnosed from owning weapons, they would find another way to get 'em.

BINGO!!!

Like this "bingo". Riddle me this: If there were no guns to get how would they "find another way to get 'em"? Make them in their basements?

To which we finally come back to your real argument, that there are already too many guns out there, there is the 2nd amendment, and the NRA, so strict gun laws wouldn't work.

I say it is time we try.

Banning X does not make X go away.

The real world is not patnet. Guns are not like Shrek.

Call it Crazy says

elliemae says

This issue isn't about guns, it's about mentally ill people owning guns. And if we were to ban all people who have been diagnosed from owning weapons, they would find another way to get 'em.

Yes it is about gun control and the the President agrees.

Lets suppose, for a (very brief) moment, that we ban guns. All guns, doesn't matter which ones. Shotguns, rifles, pistols, little bitty derringers, you name it, we ban it. Paintball guns too, because they can be lethal if given the opportunity. Fake guns, rubber guns (used in acting, for example), starter's pistols... All of them.

Anyone with a gun has to turn it in immediately. Doesn't matter if they have animals and are afraid that they'll be killed by critters (like me), doesn't matter if they work in prisons and are working to ensure the prisoners don't overtake the staff, doesn't matter if they are police officers, ban them guns.

Do you honestly believe that everyone will turn them in? Or, isn't it more likely that they will become highly valued on the black market and the only people who don't own guns are the law-abiding citizens?

Let's imagine that for a moment we ban assault riffles again and with large clips and mags.

That's a start. Not the solution, but a start.

Let's imagine for a moment that we can barcode every bullet just like every other item forsale in the world.

Limit the ammo.